Page 677 - Week 02 - Thursday, 6 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
them got to buy their guvvie homes under different policy approaches, before the Treasury perhaps took control of the way housing ran and before the federal government instituted its public housing reforms.
Anyway, it is good that we have a national context for addressing the affordable housing problem as well, and it will be interesting to see how the Rudd government’s mechanisms complement and assist the ACT government’s mechanisms. I would be very interested to see us extend our idea of what is affordable housing so that we can consider such ideas as Dr Andrew Blakers’ solarisation proposal because it lowers the ongoing cost of living in a house. We really need to see housing affordability include how much it actually costs to maintain a decent life within a house. However, I have not had any indications that the Chief Minister is enthusiastic about this proposal. I wonder actually whether he could check that out in order that he can expand his definition of housing affordability and look beyond the bricks and mortar and understand that the energy efficiency rating as it now stands actually includes an air-conditioner.
I do welcome clause 32, which rectifies the wording of section 288. I actually sought these amendments because I was concerned that, as it stood, people were being rewarded for undertaking destructive practices on rural land, such as clearing native vegetation, which should not any longer be automatically treated as something that improves the value of the land. Indeed, when we start valuing carbon offsets, it may have the opposite effect.
The measures in this bill which are aimed at discouraging speculation are welcome, and I congratulate the government for attempting to tackle this issue. I am satisfied with the safeguards in the bill against penalising people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to complete construction within the prescribed time limits. There are such people, and we are in a construction market where that is very, very possible. As always, I urge the government to keep a close eye on the implementation of these measures to ensure that their intentions translate into practice.
I do have some concerns with the provisions increasing the power of inspectors to enter private premises. I am aware of a number of instances where ACTPLA has become embroiled in disputes with private homeowners, where ACTPLA’s patience has been exhausted and the dispute grinds on, becoming more personal. Many of the planning reforms afoot at the moment do have the effect of centralising power to ACTPLA, and it makes me uneasy to see so much power accruing to one agency.
However, while I fear the consequences of giving ACTPLA inspectors more power, I also acknowledge that someone must have the power to adequately investigate complaints, just as someone must have the power to oversee the private and contracted building certifiers. I hope that ACTPLA inspectors will receive adequate training in what constitutes reasonable force, which these provisions allow them to use in entering premises.
Perhaps the ACT needs a dedicated land and environment court to resolve planning disputes. I bet that one goes down like a lead balloon. In this regard, I do not think that new section 392B is appropriate. It could easily be used vindictively. If consent to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .